================================================================================ IBIS INTERCONNECT TASK GROUP http://www.ibis.org/interconnect_wip/ Mailing list: ibis-interconnect@freelists.org Archives at http://www.freelists.org/archive/ibis-interconn/ ================================================================================ Attendees from April 24, 2019 Meeting (* means attended at least using audio) ANSYS Curtis Clark Cadence Design Systems Bradley Brim Intel Corp. Michael Mirmak* Keysight Technologies Radek Biernacki Mentor, A Siemens Business Arpad Muranyi* Micron Technology Justin Butterfield*, Randy Wolff* SiSoft Walter Katz, Mike LaBonte* Teraspeed Labs Bob Ross* Michael Mirmak convened the meeting. No patents were declared. Justin Butterfield took minutes. Review of Minutes: - Michael called for review of the minutes from the April 17, 2019 meeting. Michael noted a typo on line 59, where the text should read "examples by Micron." Bob Ross moved to approve the minutes with this correction. Randy Wolff seconded. The minutes were approved without objection. Review of ARs: - Walter Katz to make changes to the EMD draft with tracking turned on. - Michael noted we will discuss these changes related to Bob's comments. - Bob to prepare talking points on the EMD structure discussion. - Michael noted this was done and sent out to the Interconnect reflector. Opens: - Michael noted DAC will have a contingent of JEITA members, who will hold a face to face meeting on P2401. He will try to attend this meeting. They will be discussing draft 4 of the LPB spec. He asked if there is anything we need to prepare for discussion on improvements to IBIS and Interconnect related standards. He will also bring up this topic at the IBIS Open Forum meeting. Touchstone Industry Mail Draft Review: Mike LaBonte shared the latest version of the survey. He noted all comments received have been addressed. Michael suggested to go through the survey. Mike commented question 1 may have some redundancy to the last question. He noted every question on the first page is required, but that is not the case on the second page. Arpad Muranyi asked how no responses are handled. Mike replied they are listed as no response in the results. Arpad asked how do we interpret a no response. Michael suggested we can make the second page questions required. Mike made this change to questions 4, 5, 6, and 7. Michael suggested to add a "not sure" response to question 6. Mike stated he added an introductory paragraph to each section. Arpad noted an issue with the numbering for question 8. He asked if we can have only the up and down arrows for this ranking. Mike stated there is not much he can do about this. We do want a ranking for this question. Bob asked about the "N/A". Mike replied "N/A" is there to say they don't want this. Michael asked if we need to add any instructions for this. He suggested to say, for question 8, that lower is higher priority. Arpad suggested to add instructions to use the dragging method. Mike made these changes. Michael asked, if someone has never heard of Touchstone 2, how can they answer question 8. Mike replied that question 8 is about the future of Touchstone and not necessarily about Touchstone 2. Michael asked if there are any input limits on the number of characters for the text box in question 9. Mike did not know and stated we would have tested it out. Arpad asked about the duplication between questions 1 and 10. Michael noted there is a subtle difference between question 1 and question 10. He suggested question 10 should be about the company. The concern is when we say the survey represents the industry, we want to know who we are talking about. Arpad suggested to move question 10 to right after question 1. Mike asked if we want to make it required. Arpad responded we should make it required. Arpad asked about the first sentence of the introductory paragraph and asked why we are stating that Touchstone 2.0 was released in 2009. He thought the focus was too much on the date. Michael suggested to change the sentence to say: "The IBIS Open Forum, which maintains the Touchstone specification". Arpad suggested to change the word "people" to "you". Mike asked if question 1 has options that apply to IC vendors. Michael thought this is covered in EDA users and measurement tool users. Bob suggested to say it is short survey. Randy suggested to note it should take less than 5 minutes. Michael asked if we need to have this approved by the IBIS Open Forum before sending it out. Mike suggested to send an email to the IBIS board to see if there are any objections. Michael asked where to post the survey and suggested the SI List as one option. Bob asked about the IEEE P370 group. Michael responded that we would have to ask their leadership. Mike noted we could use the Signal and Power Integrity community in LinkedIn. He stated there are other groups in LinkedIn we could post to as well. Arpad asked if there should be a closing date. Michael suggested to close the survey on May 17th. Bob asked if we will assign an editor to the EMD proposal. Michael replied we will discuss this next week. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be May 1. Mike moved to adjourn. Arpad seconded. The meeting adjourned without objection. EMD Comments to be Resolved: 1. Change top level keywords to distinguish between EMD and Interconnect Models 2. Add Touchstone to the introduction 3. Clarify the meaning of signal_type 4. File format structure IBIS-ISS Parser: - Bob to contact the parser developer for initial thoughts